11–20 of 36 posts
This is a trick. They will say it is mild and then suddenly they will try to spin everything into extreme fear ... and oppression. Well known recipe.
What we've seen so far for measures have been completely inline with what the scientists recommend, and you can't argue the severity of virus that caused 5.2M deaths globally.
This comment just feels like FUD itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that diseases tend to naturally select to be more contagious but less harmful. The more contagious more harmful mutations tend to die out because they incapacitate the host before maximally spreading vs. less harmful mutations. Not to say it's not possible for a more harmful mutation to spread widely, just that it's not the expected evolution.
In a vacuum this isn't true: diseases will select to be more transmissible, that can mean less deadly, but not always, think HIV. If the incubation time is long enough before death, then it could not matter. So, you could imagine a nightmare scenario where some disease selects to have a longer incubation time while still transmitting, but then causes more severe disease down the road. However, because we have vaccine…
In this sense, low vaccination rates of Africa may be just what we needed.
This is a trick. They will say it is mild and then suddenly they will try to spin everything into extreme fear ... and oppression. Well known recipe.
What is "they"? What we've seen so far for measures have been completely inline with what the scientists recommend, and you can't argue the severity of virus that caused 5.2M deaths globally. This comment just feels like FUD itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that diseases tend to naturally select to be more contagious but less harmful. The more contagious more harmful mutations tend to die out because they incapacitate the host before maximally spreading vs. less harmful mutations. Not to say it's not possible for a more harmful mutation to spread widely, just that it's not the expected evolution.
In a vacuum this isn't true: diseases will select to be more transmissible, that can mean less deadly, but not always, think HIV. If the incubation time is long enough before death, then it could not matter. So, you could imagine a nightmare scenario where some disease selects to have a longer incubation time while still transmitting, but then causes more severe disease down the road. However, because we have vaccine…
Is there any evidence of diseases that have selected to be less deadly, aside from by killing all of its especially vulnerable hosts? As far as I can tell, this is naive optimism: the selection pressure for not killing your host is irrelevant if they're only going to be infected for a week or two anyway, and basically every mutation that's going to increase transmissibility is likely to be negative (increased viral load in infectious agents, immune escape, etc.).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that diseases tend to naturally select to be more contagious but less harmful. The more contagious more harmful mutations tend to die out because they incapacitate the host before maximally spreading vs. less harmful mutations. Not to say it's not possible for a more harmful mutation to spread widely, just that it's not the expected evolution.
In a vacuum this isn't true: diseases will select to be more transmissible, that can mean less deadly, but not always, think HIV. If the incubation time is long enough before death, then it could not matter. So, you could imagine a nightmare scenario where some disease selects to have a longer incubation time while still transmitting, but then causes more severe disease down the road. However, because we have vaccine…
HIV is clinically a mild virus and doesn't cause any severe symptoms by itself. It is only when HIV becomes AIDS that it is dangerous, but then again, the symptoms are not caused by HIV/AIDS itself, but by the lack of immune cells caused by AIDS. You could have HIV forever and not even notice it if you were in a vacuum as you say :)
We can't know how severe Omicron will be, but let's hope it just becomes a cold. As OP said, the most enduring parasites (viruses are categorically parasites), are the ones that don't kill their hosts. This is not only true for viruses, but all kinds of parasites.
This could be the "endemic version" of COVID that we've been looking for. Particularly if it really is so much more infectious than the other variants and so manages to displace them.
Could be. We've been waiting/hoping for something endemic but mild. But there's no particular reason COVID would need to get any more mild than Delta.
Can you elaborate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could be. We've been waiting/hoping for something endemic but mild. But there's no particular reason COVID would need to get any more mild than Delta.
> But there's no particular reason COVID would need to get any more mild than Delta. Can you elaborate?
Covid has a long incubation period before symptom onset (when somebody notices and isolates or becomes bed-bound). So Covid, especially Delta, spreads well for days, whether or not ultimately symptoms are mild or ultimately it causes death.
Therefore a mild version of Delta wouldn't necessarily outcompete a non-mild version of Delta, all other things being equal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a vacuum this isn't true: diseases will select to be more transmissible, that can mean less deadly, but not always, think HIV. If the incubation time is long enough before death, then it could not matter. So, you could imagine a nightmare scenario where some disease selects to have a longer incubation time while still transmitting, but then causes more severe disease down the road. However, because we have vaccine…
> In a vacuum this isn't true: diseases will select to be more transmissible, that can mean less deadly, but not always, think HIV. Is there any evidence of diseases that have selected to be less deadly, aside from by killing all of its especially vulnerable hosts? As far as I can tell, this is naive optimism: the selection pressure for not killing your host is irrelevant if they're only going to be infected for a we…
It sounds like you're asking for specific examples of pandemics that didn't happen because they weren't detrimental enough to endanger people. That category of respiratory viruses is often broadly described as "the common cold."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could be. We've been waiting/hoping for something endemic but mild. But there's no particular reason COVID would need to get any more mild than Delta.
> But there's no particular reason COVID would need to get any more mild than Delta. Can you elaborate?
Example: common cold viruses. They're essentially always there and only make you sick when your immune system weakens a bit, and goes away quickly as well.